It's a good point, and I paraphrase just slightly, that if Hampshire play their 100 players and we don't they mug us off. It isn't, however, the point I'm making. I'm saying minimal changes because being in the 100, even if not playing, is poor preparation and also disrupts the team. We've seen this effect of this already this season when Mo came back from IPL and disrupted the vibe Davies had going on as captain and top order bat.

Speaking of which, Ali almost certainly won't be back. He plays IT20 this week (I think) while Woakes isn't needed for England until ODIs later in the month. There's a good case from England's PoV in him playing the semi, bearing in mind he also missed the last 100 game, but I bet he won't be available

I can't remember and CBA to look it up but Durham and Sussex chases both followed the same pattern of 4/5 getting knocked over really quickly and Barnard and Ethan having to dig it out. In both those games Barn/Eth scored 330 or so combined, though Ed did score about 260 of those himself.

BristolBear wrote:

Mikkyk wrote:

Tayls79 wrote:

There's another aspect to the post-100 players coming back: would they improve the team? For us the opening partnership plus three can't be improved, most of the bowling can't really be improved (come back to this) even 6/7 Ethan has locked down. But our middle order could be. As it stands its Davies, Bethell and Burgess and none of them have scored too heavily. Ot must be tempting to return Hain and Mousley.

Interesting I’d have said Ethan would be the most vulnerable.
Averages less than Shaikh and Burgess I’m pretty sure.
Obviously Burgess is the keeper and has kept well, also the fact they rested him seems to suggest they intend to play him. Whereas I don’t think Brooks has bowled in this competition, so should be offering more.
He’s also leaving at the end of the season. So I’d prioritise the likes of Shaikh and Smith above him.

We know Davies isn’t going anywhere, but could see Hain back in for Bethell who’s been pretty poor in general this year.
Would love Mousley for Davies, but suspect it would more likely be for Smith.

Gloucester brought back both of their Hundred players. Lancashire brought back some of theirs too, but were far less effective.

Don't get me wrong, for moral or reasons of fairness, I still wouldn't return 100 players.

There's another aspect to the post-100 players coming back: would they improve the team? For us the opening partnership plus three can't be improved, most of the bowling can't really be improved (come back to this) even 6/7 Ethan has locked down. But our middle order could be. As it stands its Davies, Bethell and Burgess and none of them have scored too heavily. Ot must be tempting to return Hain and Mousley.

Woakes is interesting. He's in the ODI squad in September but not the IT20s next week so I can see him replacing Brookes (H) or Miles for the semi final for fine tuning purposes for England.

In all cases, I wouldn't though. Not for moral reasons but for cricketing reasons. None of the returning players are as assured as the picks that are there already. I think Hamza was a bit unlucky to be dropped but putting him straight back into to a semi final is probably a step too far.

You never quite know what's going to happen with the other teams bringing back their 100 players. I bet Hants bring back Vince and Dawson straight away... if both teams put out their strongest sides I think we as good or better than them, but they do seem to play the big games better. On the assumption Hants get past Worcester we'll see a real test of how much we've improved in this regard through the season.

Sorry about that. Though that was a neutral post! Indeed, someone is going to have to play well and stick with Barnard here. This is exactly what I meant by momentum going the other way...

LeicesterExile wrote:

Tayls79 has some explaining to do - post #25 and the wheels are coming off !!!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously this is going to need a big partnership from somewhere to pull off a win now

Started our innings well from a look of the scorecard. It's actually an important innings. Play well and win that's our momentum going into the knockouts, go badly it could be the beginning of a slide. Going tired into the eliminator game sounds grim.

It does make sense to rest one or two. I just get worried every time Burgess gets rested thinking it's a prelude to him leaving. Especially if Davies gets the gloves. Would have thought Barnard must be due a rest, he's barely stopped this competition.

That would be a good rule. I think the case in question was one team stuck with their seconds and one team brought players back. But I can't remember if it was this year or last.

Andy wrote:

Kent and Lancashire both declined to use their Hundred players when they became available for last year's final. I think?

I think anyone who hasn't played in the groups shouldn't play the knockouts.

All credit to the competition but still too close to tell what's going to happen. Worcs played out now and we really shouldn't drop our NRR as low as theirs though with this statement. and of course with Gloucs, you can't easily see what NRR means in tangible run terms. Looks like Hampshire could top the other group, which I think is good and means we should avoid them in the semis, they have a big psychological hold on us in knock outs.

The other facet now is selection with more 100 players coming back all the time. An issue is how many should come back and my tentative answer here is no more than present. Anyone who has played a part in the 100 should sit it out in my view, partially because they will destabilise a successful team but partially because of a moral 'cup-tied' sense of balance. Already think its a shame Kai Smith and Hamza have dropped out, both have made good contributions.

Could be an interesting chase this one. I guess somewhere there's a run rate calculation to meet. But I think the only way to approach this is not to throw the hands at everything and risk being bowled out for 200. Which we're seeing.

It bought some very different facets to the game but still needed good cricket skills to win there, which Warks brought. So I don't think it was totally farcical. A bowl-off, a coin toss or a game of tiddlywinks I think would have been farcical.

Anyhow. I was looking at the table last night and I think it's only run rate that is standing is standing between us and top spot. Which adds uncertainty as I'm not sure what sort of spanking we'd need to have at the hands of Sussex and Durham not to get that home semifinal.

I thought we'd need 120 but seemed to be one of those pitches that gets harder to score on. I didn't see most of our innings but the ability of our bowlers to hit that blue line on the off side at yorker length was the difference. Miles, OHD, Brooks and Barnard all did very well at that with only a few misses for wides.

I started watching on the sixth ball hence missed that Barnard six. But did they both get seduced that short boundary in the second over?

Cricinfo has 1656 start time, which means that 10 overs each way, right? I see the other games today the scoring has been at 8 runs per over so could be fun...

Ten overs each way smashabout would be a great laugh. If we win.

I should clarify: I know we need to finish top to go straight to the semi finals. I think that if we end up playing away to somewhere like Essex or Hampshire in the quarters we'll lose. One win from either Durham or Sussex though I think we should be able to manage even if it is a no-result here.

Yeah looks like no chance before 1400 or so according to BBC weather. I'm not sure what a 'no result' means for our qualification assurance but I think it actually hinders it, seems one more win would make sure we qualify but dependent on others results for the top spot. And I think we need top spot to go straight to the semi finals.

There's a whole separate argument that could fire up here on what the ideal catering set up is for an outground and we've had some great pointers such as the Traditional English Ale in Surrey, the ice cream van and dodgy burgers. If anything the outgrounds liberate us a bit and we're not hemmed in by Marstons stadium ale. I too remember being in a real ale festival at a Guildford bears game a few years back.

BosworthBear wrote:

We don’t need to replicate the Cheltenham Festival - what a ludicrous comparison!

We don’t need chefs, waiters, Michelin stars or any other bogus obstacle suggested.

We are talking about one day’s cricket not even a four day game at this stage.

It really wouldn’t cost much at all and numerous grounds would qualify but I would suggest higher population areas like Nuneaton and Coventry away from Birmingham would be best.

I’ve seen Warwickshire play at Whitgift, Beckenham, Maidstone, Tunbridge Wells, Guildford amongst others. It’s really not that difficult to set up seating, toilets, a beer tent, burgers and an ice cream van.

Some of the obstacles claimed are bizarre.

And to those talking about distance and transport - imagine what it’s like for some of us to travel to every match at Edgbaston.

As for Birmingham members not understanding the county concept. Of course it’s not all of them. The comment was in reply to Gerry who spoke about Notts members complaining about travelling. I said I’m sure we would get the same. There used to be one chap on the old forum - who came from Norfolk and actually lived in Worcestershire although he didn’t realise it - who obsessively complained about outgrounds because he had had to travel to Stratford. I’ve seen similar obstacle placing from Birmingham based members at the AGM. And obviously there’s a member on this forum coming up with all sorts of spurious excuses.

It’s a sad fact Birmingham has forgotten/lost its connection as being part of Warwickshire in a way Manchester and Leeds haven’t with Lancashire and Yorkshire even though the circumstances are identical.

I don't know. I'm not that invested in it (though if there were a game in Rugby it would make me more likely to attend - its much nearer) but if it were a cost of £100k with no guarantee of any income not many other counties would do it. My point about Middlesex was mainly that they do it relatively cheaply and flexibly. Personally I like a dodgy burger and a can of IPA from a chilled bathtub so their position isn't at odds with the market.

Highveld wrote:

If you look at the set up at Cheltenham, where about 1/3rd of the boundary is given over to marquees, which will need a kitchen, cooks and waiting staff, as well as the additional stewarding costs, plus the cost of transporting the stewards from Bristol each day my figure would be pretty accurate.
Corporate sponsors will not spend their money for a hard seat and a dodgy burger.

We all have differing views on the subject, I have no doubt that a lot of the logistical issues could be resolved if a comercial sponsor from Warwick, Coventry, Nuneaton or Stratford offered to underwrite the extensive costs involved.